The Scary Republican Base

While we are talking about "The Blaze", I've noticed the Yahoo news aggregator or whatever you call it listing articles from there quite regularly now.

Yahoo generally has the worst written articles around, I usually skim through them once in a blue moon though just to check the comments which alone is enough to disprove gods existence . But if they are listing those Beck-related articles more often, it's just proof that yahoo has no journalistic integrity whatsoever.

She's a professional troll, like Bill O'Reilly. Unlike him, however, she actually seems to drink her own haterade. Still, it's just safer to assume anything coming out of either of their mouths is deliberate provocation.

I'm curious about that, too, because I received a stupid forwarded email about how "planned parenthood supports abortion of live babies!!!oneone" (despite the fact that that's infanticide, not abortion...), but I couldn't find anything on snopes about it.

That story is all kinds of messed up, and I wouldn't be surprised if I saw especially the more tabloidy news sources milking it for maximum drama. I don't tend to watch TV news, so I'm not sure if it's getting coverage on the major networks or not. I could perhaps see a "respectable" news source deciding not to cover it since it's pretty gross and out there, but I'm not sure if there are any major news sources left that wouldn't exploit gory details like that for maximum attention.

That said, most of the coverage I have seen about it has been focused on the "why aren't people covering this more" opinion pieces rather than coverage focused on the actual case itself.

Sounds like conservatives whining because they can't manipulate or control the current political narrative. It's pretty simple. If the accusations are proven true, it's still at best a case of malpractice and negligence or at worst phsychotic/sociopathic murder...but it's not a valid reason for criminalizing abortion itself...which is what conservatives want.

Pretty much a further continuation of their hissy fit politics demanding that everyone conform to not just their beliefs but also their priorities.

Any time I see "you don't see this in the media!", I see either the SRB whining about not controlling the narrative (like trying to claim any case of black-on-white violence ignored for the Zimmerman/Martin case) or the distinguished conspiracy anti-journalists like Alex Jones and other "Info Warriors" who spin wild tales of sinister plots with a huge theory spun wildly out of one or two possibly accurate facts.

Either way, I tend to red-flag anyone telling me that I need to pay attention to those articles as absolutely incapable of advanced comprehension or basic understandings of law, journalism, and most importantly...context.

I have seen some articles on this, and my opinion why most of the main media sites aren't covering it is because it does not actually seem that controversial. He is being tried for killing a patient, killing newborn babies, performing illegal late-term abortions, and I think illegal distribution of painkillers. I can't really see large group of people seeing the list of charges and upholding this man as a saint. Its a story of a seemingly corrupt physician doing a bunch of things that most people seem to agree are not good. This isn't exactly the OJ trial here. The story is morbid, and can hold a little interest, but it isn't exactly generating a whole ton of controversy on its own merit.

Media companies aren't running the story because of some big conspiracy to support the guy, they aren't running the story because discussions where everybody agrees with each other do not generate the hits.

I have seen some articles on this, and my opinion why most of the main media sites aren't covering it is because it does not actually seem that controversial. He is being tried for killing a patient, killing newborn babies, performing illegal late-term abortions, and I think illegal distribution of painkillers. I can't really see large group of people seeing the list of charges and upholding this man as a saint. Its a story of a seemingly corrupt physician doing a bunch of things that most people seem to agree are not good. This isn't exactly the OJ trial here. The story is morbid, and can hold a little interest, but it isn't exactly generating a whole ton of controversy on its own merit.

Media companies aren't running the story because of some big conspiracy to support the guy, they aren't running the story because discussions where everybody agrees with each other do not generate the hits.

Ironically (I guess), I would rather stories like this take the media by storm than Casey Anthony or OJ. But, like you said, there aren’t two sides to this story; it is clearly evil, and there is a trial. Hell, there’s not even a defense, since he’s pleading guilty. I suppose there could be questions about industry practices, but until we hear about whistle blowers elsewhere, this appears to be an isolated case. Even so, I am much more interested in an entity (no matter how small and rogue in operation) that performs atrocities per procedure than I am some mom who flips out because she can't hack it (or a jealous ex-football player).

Too bad those that are holding this guy up as a reason to ban abortion don't follow the logical conclusion that if they were to succeed and make abortion illegal, then everyone seeking an abortion would go to "clinics" like this one.

Controversy sells. Places that sell so-called news want to sell more product. Insert enraged topic here, full of vitriol and how the other side is cannibals. The SRB has been a master of this craft for a while now, but there are some on the SLB (Scary Left Base) that are taking the queues.

I have seen some articles on this, and my opinion why most of the main media sites aren't covering it is because it does not actually seem that controversial. He is being tried for killing a patient, killing newborn babies, performing illegal late-term abortions, and I think illegal distribution of painkillers. I can't really see large group of people seeing the list of charges and upholding this man as a saint. Its a story of a seemingly corrupt physician doing a bunch of things that most people seem to agree are not good. This isn't exactly the OJ trial here. The story is morbid, and can hold a little interest, but it isn't exactly generating a whole ton of controversy on its own merit.

Media companies aren't running the story because of some big conspiracy to support the guy, they aren't running the story because discussions where everybody agrees with each other do not generate the hits.

Ironically (I guess), I would rather stories like this take the media by storm than Casey Anthony or OJ. But, like you said, there aren’t two sides to this story; it is clearly evil, and there is a trial. Hell, there’s not even a defense, since he’s pleading guilty. I suppose there could be questions about industry practices, but until we hear about whistle blowers elsewhere, this appears to be an isolated case. Even so, I am much more interested in an entity (no matter how small and rogue in operation) that performs atrocities per procedure than I am some mom who flips out because she can't hack it (or a jealous ex-football player).

Which I suppose i why the story should have more staying power. It is a story that shows that the evil we conjure up in our head does in fact have basis in reality, and there are parts to any issue (such as abortion in this case) where many people can agree with each other. I would find a story about the law side of this story (how law enforcement first caught wind of the operation, how they retrieved evidence, etc) to be very interesting (if not morbid).

But as the saying goes we are in the "information" age where everyone wants their news in bits and pieces opposed to an actual full and compelling story. If anything I think one of the problems with the large, "mainstream" media companies (except Time and the like that are more of a weekly based periodical) is that for the most part they produce short articles that contain really only present facts and are often lacking in context and detail. There is a reason I call CNN "Children's Network News".

That exact story is why we were talking about Ann Coulter in the first place.

Ack, I must have skipped that. My bad.

LTParis wrote:

CPX wrote:

Welcome to 21st Century America, where no controversy means no news.

Controversy sells. Places that sell so-called news want to sell more product. Insert enraged topic here, full of vitriol and how the other side is cannibals. The SRB has been a master of this craft for a while now, but there are some on the SLB (Scary Left Base) that are taking the queues.

I have seen some articles on this, and my opinion why most of the main media sites aren't covering it is because it does not actually seem that controversial. He is being tried for killing a patient, killing newborn babies, performing illegal late-term abortions, and I think illegal distribution of painkillers. I can't really see large group of people seeing the list of charges and upholding this man as a saint. Its a story of a seemingly corrupt physician doing a bunch of things that most people seem to agree are not good. This isn't exactly the OJ trial here. The story is morbid, and can hold a little interest, but it isn't exactly generating a whole ton of controversy on its own merit.

Media companies aren't running the story because of some big conspiracy to support the guy, they aren't running the story because discussions where everybody agrees with each other do not generate the hits.

Ironically (I guess), I would rather stories like this take the media by storm than Casey Anthony or OJ. But, like you said, there aren’t two sides to this story; it is clearly evil, and there is a trial. Hell, there’s not even a defense, since he’s pleading guilty. I suppose there could be questions about industry practices, but until we hear about whistle blowers elsewhere, this appears to be an isolated case. Even so, I am much more interested in an entity (no matter how small and rogue in operation) that performs atrocities per procedure than I am some mom who flips out because she can't hack it (or a jealous ex-football player).

Which I suppose i why the story should have more staying power. It is a story that shows that the evil we conjure up in our head does in fact have basis in reality, and there are parts to any issue (such as abortion in this case) where many people can agree with each other. I would find a story about the law side of this story (how law enforcement first caught wind of the operation, how they retrieved evidence, etc) to be very interesting (if not morbid).

But as the saying goes we are in the "information" age where everyone wants their news in bits and pieces opposed to an actual full and compelling story. If anything I think one of the problems with the large, "mainstream" media companies (except Time and the like that are more of a weekly based periodical) is that for the most part they produce short articles that contain really only present facts and are often lacking in context and detail. There is a reason I call CNN "Children's Network News".

Unless the subject is a hot cocktail waitress. Then it's all coverage all the time with in depth analysis of body language, style choices, and aromas.

The frustrating thing about the linked oped is that, at a certain level, I agree (as intimated) - but not at all with the premise.

Controversy sells. Places that sell so-called news want to sell more product. Insert enraged topic here, full of vitriol and how the other side is cannibals. The SRB has been a master of this craft for a while now, but there are some on the SLB (Scary Left Base) that are taking the queues.

Now a word from our sponsor. Brawndo. It's got electrolytes.

Exactly. But I think this is fundamentally a problem of for-profit journalism...and there's no way to seriously address the issue without either drastically altering the 1A or getting everybody to play nice and voluntarily post just what's happening instead of relying on shock jocks to drive ratings to drive profits.

I have seen some articles on this, and my opinion why most of the main media sites aren't covering it is because it does not actually seem that controversial. He is being tried for killing a patient, killing newborn babies, performing illegal late-term abortions, and I think illegal distribution of painkillers. I can't really see large group of people seeing the list of charges and upholding this man as a saint. Its a story of a seemingly corrupt physician doing a bunch of things that most people seem to agree are not good. This isn't exactly the OJ trial here. The story is morbid, and can hold a little interest, but it isn't exactly generating a whole ton of controversy on its own merit.

Media companies aren't running the story because of some big conspiracy to support the guy, they aren't running the story because discussions where everybody agrees with each other do not generate the hits.

Ironically (I guess), I would rather stories like this take the media by storm than Casey Anthony or OJ. But, like you said, there aren’t two sides to this story; it is clearly evil, and there is a trial. Hell, there’s not even a defense, since he’s pleading guilty. I suppose there could be questions about industry practices, but until we hear about whistle blowers elsewhere, this appears to be an isolated case. Even so, I am much more interested in an entity (no matter how small and rogue in operation) that performs atrocities per procedure than I am some mom who flips out because she can't hack it (or a jealous ex-football player).

Which I suppose i why the story should have more staying power. It is a story that shows that the evil we conjure up in our head does in fact have basis in reality, and there are parts to any issue (such as abortion in this case) where many people can agree with each other. I would find a story about the law side of this story (how law enforcement first caught wind of the operation, how they retrieved evidence, etc) to be very interesting (if not morbid).

But as the saying goes we are in the "information" age where everyone wants their news in bits and pieces opposed to an actual full and compelling story. If anything I think one of the problems with the large, "mainstream" media companies (except Time and the like that are more of a weekly based periodical) is that for the most part they produce short articles that contain really only present facts and are often lacking in context and detail. There is a reason I call CNN "Children's Network News".

Unless the subject is a hot cocktail waitress. Then it's all coverage all the time with in depth analysis of body language, style choices, and aromas.

The frustrating thing about the linked oped is that, at a certain level, I agree (as intimated) - but not at all with the premise.

Same here. I agree that it is surprising that a more people don't want to hear about this story, but I really don't think it is due to some conspiring to keep it out of the headlines do defend a pro-choice bias. I don't even see how sweeping this story under the rug would even help a pro-choice position. What is the argument going to be?

Pro-lifer: "Look at the atrocities this doctor was committing by giving abortions!" Pro-choicer: "Exactly! That it why these procedures are illegal."

There isn't an argument to be had. It is a story that saddens and enrages, but not a story that makes everyone want to give you a piece of their mind. This is precisely why the Sandra Fluke/Limbaugh story (an example used in one of the articles) was so big is because that causes people to get angry and they want to say something about it.

As far as why is there no trial coverage, I think it is because A) he pleaded guilty and B) most people don't actually give a shit about procedure in law (and those who do have their places they go to be informed and discuss).

If anything of what I said has any truth to it, I think maybe the problem is that the media is no longer there to inform people, but a place we all go to get self-righteous. Soapbox included

I'm curious about that, too, because I received a stupid forwarded email about how "planned parenthood supports abortion of live babies!!!oneone" (despite the fact that that's infanticide, not abortion...), but I couldn't find anything on snopes about it.

If it's the thing I'm thinking about, the Planned Parenthood bit comes from the testimony someone from PP gave regarding what is the appropriate way to treat a baby which is out of the womb due to a botched abortion. The issue is that it is typically extremely premature at this point and needs a lot of care, and probably still won't survive. The PP person handled the question really poorly and said something to the effect of how it is the parent's choice, and the right has jumped on them as wanting to kill babies.

(I'm sure I have some of the details there wrong, so if someone has a link to the real story please post it )

bthylafh wrote:

Cow-orker, who happens to be a climate-change denier, was talking to another just now and asserted that it takes six months for light to travel from here to Mars.

Knowing him as I do, I don't think this will cause him to reexamine other aspects of his stance on science.